Lemon+v.+Kurtzman

Hannah Dyal, Kristee Glace, & Megan Good

Lemon v. Kurtzman United States Supreme Court Argued March 3, 1971 Decided June 28, 1971 **Background** Mr. Alton Lemon sued David Kurtzman, Superintendent of Public Instruction of Pennsylvania for allegedly violating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Lemon stated that the Pennsylvania 1968 Nonpublic Elementary and Secondary Education Act which allowed the state superintendent of Public Instruction to reimburse nonpublic schools (most of which were Catholic) for the salaries of teachers who taught secular material in these nonpublic schools, secular textbooks and instruction materials was unconstitutional. He further argued that the law must have a legitimate secular purpose, must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and must not result in an excessive entanglement of government and religion. Another case involving state funds to supplement salaries to nonpublic schools was the Rhode Island Salary Supplement Act.

**Decision** “The three-judge court system granted the State’s motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief, finding no violation of the Establishment or Free Exercise Clause.” This is due to the fact that both statutes are unconstitutional under the Religion Clauses in the First Amendment. This has caused a predicament between religion and government. For example, “The entanglement in the Rhode Island program arises because of the religious activity and purpose of the church-affiliated schools, especially with respect to children of impressionable age in the primary grade, and the dangers that a teacher under religious control and discipline poses to the separation of religious from purely secular aspects of elementary education in such schools.” These factors require the state to ensure the First Amendment is respected.

** Impact on Teaching ** Teachers who teach in public schools are automatically required to follow a set of standards for teaching students. One of which is that education and religion simply do not coincide with one another in a public school setting. Teachers at private institutions such as Christian or Catholic schools are not held to the same standards. In the case of //Lemon v. Kurtzman,// the courts found that supplementing schools with government funds must have limits. The called these limits the “Lemon Test”. In this test, if any of the following apply to schools, they may not receive government supplements: ** Question ** Religious entanglement is a problem in funding nonpublic schools. True or False
 * 1) // The government's action **must have a secular legislative purpose**; //
 * 2) // The government's action **must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion**; //
 * 3) // The government's action **must not result in an "excessive government entanglement" with religion**. //